If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

I am sorry, but have to react on this. What do you mean by the media is over reacting on this? Together with Chernobyl this incident clearly shows that nuclear power is NOT a sustainable option. What I do not understand about all this pro nuclear lobby is how you can minimize the nuclear risk? What else has to happen to proof otherwises? Remember that risk equals the chance of something going wrong multiplied with the consequence. Well, the chance of something might be lower than a plane crashing (which actually might be wrong, but just for the sake of the argument), but the consequences are...well you witnessed that first hand.

I am not specialist in this area, I bet you are not either.
I just say one thing: Compare amount of pollution and human death's/sicknesses caused by producing atomic energy, and "conventional" methods, including everything since Chernobyl and accidents(apart from Chernobyl itself, lesson IS actually learned).

Just because facility was destroyed - doesn't mean everything else is contaminated, or foobar contaminated.

you spread only disinfo here without sources. Here is a list with solar power stations. Maybe your source is already very outdated

Capacity of the biggest solar thermal station has a capacity of 354 MW. That is not bad. Would be very interesting to get info about construction cost, operation cost, dismantling cost, disposal/recycling cost, cost of possible risks with sources. Otherwise these numbers don't tell much.

Comment

Nuclear waepons were only used as a weapon in WWII, which stopped uhm... the entire fsking World War.

So difficult this rational thinking... -_-

You wrong, an high amount of nuclear weapons were used in tests, and they have done much damage to ecosystem and population near tests areas, but this information is not easy to find, governments are not interested in public document those negative effects.

There is a good story in nevada - Utah desert, US have done a lot of nuclear tests there (during 1950-1990 aprox) At the same time near the test zone various cinema studios filmed various films, if you search far enough you will find that a very HIGH percentage of actors and "cinema workers" that participated on those films have developed cancer a few years later.

Nuclear power plants are fairly safe, although when an accident happens the consequences are fatal, a lot of people developed cancer on countries near Chernobyl (far away than 30km) and there are studies that correlated the Chernobyl accident with those cancers. In a vast zone around Chernobyl, farming is not allowed any more.

Comment

You wrong, an high amount of nuclear weapons were used in tests, and they have done much damage to ecosystem and population near tests areas, but this information is not easy to find, governments are not interested in public document those negative effects.
...

Here is a video animation which shows nuclear explosions from 1945-1998.

Comment

If you go for those windpower thingis, forget it, they're big, they aren't safe (everytime a bigger storm comes down, one of those things breaks)

Why some countries *already* produce 40% of its energy from wind sources and others no? why Spain has 40% wind and 15% nuclear and France has 75 nuclear and wind power at minimum amount?

I answer you, because of politics and bad decisions. There are choices now, we are not in 50s, so making the right decision is important. This is the balance of exported power between france and spain during the last years:

Positive numbers show that Spain purchased power to France, negative that France purchased power to Spain. Spain has increased his power output during the last years due to wind power, and it exports power to France. Thanks to wind power inversions the production of energy is now more economic and competitive in Spain than in France.

I doubt that these calculations include risk from severe catastrophes like from Tschernobyl or Fukushima. Would also be interesting to know if waste management/recycling costs are fully included in these calculations. And how much does human lifes, healthiness and nature cost?